Posted on 06/14/2006 2:41:32 PM PDT by Drew McKissick
The slippery slope of secular humanism continues to become even more so all around the world. We are quickly moving beyond a mere degradation of social virtues to outright hostility against religion and potential criminalization of adherents who practice their faith in their daily lives.
In recent years we have seen the Dutch government change its laws to allow euthanasia, gay marriage, infanticide of imperfect children, and most recently, the sanctioning of gay polygamous unions.
Gay marriage as become a reality in Canada and Massachusetts. For years our own government has flirted with passage of so called “hate crimes” legislation that essentially criminalizes individual thoughts by way of adding extra penalties if biases, hatreds or intolerances are perceived in the commission of a crime.
And now the British government is proposing a sweeping new legal code that would forbid discrimination against homosexuals when in the market for “goods and services”.
As we know from our own experience in this country with the broad interpretation of our Constitution’s language regarding “interstate commerce”, it’s no leap of logic to deduce that “goods and services” will soon encompass just about any human interaction involving an exchange of money. Its effect will be that of forcing people of faith, be it Christian, Jew or Muslim – pretty much everyone except secular humanists – to act contrary to their religious beliefs in the conduct of their everyday lives, or else become a criminal.
For example, religious schools would commit a crime by not allowing gay students or teachers. Churches that occasionally rent our their facilities for community events would violate the law by not allowing gays the same access – perhaps even to hold same-sex “marriage” services.
Religious newspapers would violate the law if they refuse to run advertisements for gay lobbying groups. A Christian owned ad agency would be unable to refuse to do work for a campaign promoting gay marriage.
In short, the active practice of one’s faith in everyday life would no longer be legal.
Here in the United States, the move by Massachusetts’ Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage without so much as a vote by that state’s legislature, much less its citizens, has resulted in making the adoption agency practices of the Catholic Church illegal. That being the case, the Church was forced to end providing such services altogether, rather than compromise their faith.
The implications don’t stop there. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback recently pointed out that, “…in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all.”
Generally, such proposed legal changes stem from the fact that the secular humanist crowd doesn’t see religion as something that should instruct one’s daily life and relationships, but rather as simply representative of a place some people go on Sunday. And they have no patience for people who take it more seriously than that.
Someone once said that true tolerance also means having tolerance for the views of the majority. While history is filled with examples of religious intolerances, the greatest levels of intolerance today no longer come from the faithful, but rather from the anti-religious.
Much is made by the left in our country of the First Amendment’s “establishment clause” in our Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”. From bans on prayer in schools, or at publicly sponsored events, to public displays of the Ten Commandments and even the inclusion of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, we are told that such observances constitute an “establishment of religion” and are therefore unconstitutional.
They seem to forget that the very next phrase in the First Amendment states, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. In other words, it provides for freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion.
Here in this country and abroad, we desperately need fewer politicians and judges working to use the state as a weapon against religious practice, and more that will be vigilant to oppose government actions that prohibit the free exercise of religion in our everyday lives.
Well said.
Man, you are certainly lathered up, and I don't mean any insult.
That said, you are free to not do any of those things, and perhaps persuede your family, friends, or anyone else given your belief system to follow suit.
Make sure the energy you spend trying to change people who will probably not change, despite your best efforts, to that of maintaining your own.
In my experience, holding on to a rigid belief system that allows no correction, is doomed. Again, no offense intended.
BUMP!!!
Huh? It appears you have completely missed the point. The article is not talking about individuals choosing or not choosing to do various things, but being forced to violate their conscience by the state.
This is not exactly correct. The Catholic Church in Massachusetts exposed itself to this kind of nonsense when it first arranged to have its "adoption agency" services carried out through an organization called Catholic Charities. Despite its name, Catholic Charities really isn't a religious organization at all -- which means that the secularization of the Catholic Church in this case was basically self-inflicted.
All within the space of one generation.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus, Lion of Judah, Lamb and Only Son of God. Amen.
"...forced to violate their conscience by the state..."
While the sad state of the state allows some to do things that you and I find disgusting, the state hasn't as yet forced me to violate my priciples.
Interesting. Just one very small example, I have had to select minority candidates for scholarships when my principles run against such preferences. Another: my children have been exposed to lots of propaganda in the public schools that neither they nor I had any choice about.
If the state has not yet forced you to violate your principles in any way whatsoever, I would think either you have not thought very hard about the things the state forces us to do, or you don't have much in the way of principles. No offense intended.
Touche, Irene.
The article wasn't about you, or your (unknown) principles. Why rag on another FReeper? Plenty of us have had a big dose of Gay Affirmative Action forced on us by employers, school boards, local legislatures or lawyers or judges for the ex-spouse. Here in Maryland, a single judge has already decided We Shall Have Gay Marriage, and the leftist legislature did an end run around the thousands of citizens and delegates who attempted to return the issue to the People for a vote. If it is not stopped on appeal at the Appeals level of judicial activists, it will be affirmatively taught as an inalienable right to all schoolchildren in this state, regardless of the majority who disagree, even in liberal counties.
There are thousands, if not millions, of Christ-believing Americans who have already been worked over by the State over issues of political correctness.
If you disagree with a post because you haven't personally experienced it, Lord help you. Learning will be hard for you on the road ahead.
Fight the good fight, but meanwhile:
Start your own business, and home/private school your kids.
Lead by example; that's all I was trying to say.
Here in NYC, everything wrong under the Sun is constantly bombarding us, but there are ways to avoid being forced to accept it.
Pax Vobiscum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.